Recently, Reverend Daniel Harper posted some constructive criticism about the UU Ministerial Association’s ethical guidelines. He pointed out that, with the phrase that a minister should “strictly respect confidences given me by colleagues and expect them to keep mine” there could be legal and ethical issues in cases involving clergy misconduct.

Robin Edgar’s take on this? Well, remember Robin Edgar’s Rules #2 (everything in black and white) and #3 (any bad news about UUs is proof that UUs are bad). So if one minister has a specific, well-thought criticism about specific wording of the UUMA’s ethical codes, then it’s not only true, but a justification for him to accuse all UU ministers of being collectively corrupt, incompetent and stupid.

Robin Edgar likes to boast that he’s been criticizing UU “injustices, abuses and hypocrisies” for years. Setting aside the fact that many of these “criticisms” stretch the bounds of credibility, not one of them is constructive. His only “positive” recommendation that we can see is to allow any complaint against any minister to be renewed an indefinite number of times, regardless of whether there is any evidence to support it. Why? Because in his black-and-white mindset, UU ministers deserve to be attacked and harassed without end, as he has been doing for so many years, even after retirement and death.

We are glad that Reverend Harper and the First UU Church of Nashville has raised this issue, and join them in urging the UUMA to refine the problematic wording. There’s a big difference, however, between such constructive criticism and the hyperbolic attacks of a disturbed and obsessed individual with no positive solutions to offer.

We have not seen any new posts on Robin Edgar’s blog, but he has been posting comments on other UU blogs.

Most recently a minister raised the question of what sacred texts people refer to. Here is Robin Edgar’s answer:

“Quite regrettably it is all too human to be inhuman.”

Most ironically, and most regrettably. . . that original saying of mine was inspired by the rather inhuman behavior of s0-called “Humanist” U*Us.

No Bible or Koran, just a single “original” sentence directed at Humanist UUs. It is certainly worth meditating upon, and especially to remind ourselves to be forgiving of others, and more mindful of our own actions.

Not for Robin Edgar, apparently, who has repeatedly claimed that his persistent insults and harassment are “payback” for the “inhuman” treatment by some UUs towards him. No turning the other cheek for him, he believes that what goes around comes around, and if you are in his sights he’ll be coming around to get you, and not just once but several times — even after you’re gone.

Falls in line with calling his “legitimate” picketing of UU churches and events an “alternative spiritual practice”. Where is the spirituality of lashing out in anger, using any excuse to defame a whole community of people, and never ever moving on?

We wonder, and we worry, what a man with such a mentality has next in mind.

Reading Robin Edgar’s comments on other people’s blogs can be confusing. He makes sweeping accusations against Unitarian Universalists, with no specifics to back them up.

For example, on David Markham’s UU A Way Of Life blog, he insists that UUs of ‘egregiously misusing and abusing democratic principles’. How so, Mister Edgar? He gives no examples, and if somebody takes the bait of asking him, he will most likely go on yet another rant about the Unitarian Church of Montreal ‘egregiously misusing and abusing democratic principles’ to have him removed rather than continue letting him harass church members and disrupt church life.

We have found it important that, to understand such vagaries, it is important to know some key elements of Robin Edgar’s self-centered mentality. First and foremost, he is never wrong and can never do any wrong. Even when he is shown to be in error, or to have engaged in the same egregious behaviour he denounces in others, he bends over backwards to deny it, justify it, or simply lash out at his accuser.

Secondly, everything in black and white. If a UU minister says things he doesn’t like, and won’t apologise the way he wants, and Canadian and American UU leaders tell him that his complaints of unethical conduct are not actionable, then he jumps to the conclusion that all these UUs actually endorse what the minister said. Combine that with the first rule that Robin Edgar is never wrong, and he feels he can lash out at any and every UU who dares to even question his perception of events.

Last and certainly not least, any bad news about UUs is proof that UUs are bad. So when a member of a UU church is alleged to have murdered his wife, even though it has nothing to do with how the UUA or its congregations are governed, or how UU organizations handle grievances, in his mind it fits in his ever growing list of UU ‘injustices, abuses and hypocrisies’. Likewise the story of Reverend Mack Mitchell, exposed by his own congregation of false imprisonment and rape, and dismissed from ministry by the UUA – but a UU minister did bad things, and the UUA didn’t act quick enough or publicly enough for his perfectionistic tastes (see second rule) so he’s justified in accusing the UUA of a ‘coverup’ and keeps saying so even after several people have pointed out that there was no such coverup. Why? See the first rule.

So before you ask what Robin Edgar means by something, we suggest that you use these rules to translate what he says for himself.